1987/05/052'27'
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
VACANCY:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBEES: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCILMEMBER~: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGE~: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2:30 p.m. on May 1, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at
12:00 noon and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership, 51-93-18; Konieczny vs. Beauchamp, et al.
O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:10 p.m.)
i~FTERP. ECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (1:54 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Halboth, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Fire Service Day in Anaheim, May 9, 1987,
369
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Older Americans Day in Anaheim, May 25, 1987,
National Day of Prayer in Anaheim, May 7, 1987,
Hire-A-Youth Week inAnaheim, May 10-16, 1987,
Police Week in Anaheim, May 11-15, 1987.
Fire Marshal Mike Dory accepted the Fire Service Day proclamation; Mary Atwell
accepted the Senior Citizens Club proclamation; Fred Bercher and Leata Ritter
accepted the Hire A Youth Week proclamation; Sgt. Jori Beteag, President
Anaheim Police Association, accepted the Police Week in Anaheim proclamation.
119: EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION: The City Council unanimously ratified an
Expression of Appreciation to Murray and Pauline Sporn, Temple Beth Emet, for
outstanding service and contributions to the community.
119: EXPRESSION OF CONGRATULATIONS: An Expression of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Councilman and former
Mayor of Fullerton "Buck" Catlin on the occasion of the City of Fullerton's
100thAnniversary.
119: EXPRESSION OF WELCOME: An Expression of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to the California Association of Women
Highway Leaders on the occasion of their 12th annual meeting to be held in the
City of Anaheim.
MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held April 14, 1987. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
One
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by. all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,323,491.09, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT C,A-T.I~'qDAR: O'D. motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 87R-165 through 87R-176, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
370
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
a. Claim submitted by Hartta Juneman for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 27, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Pascal & Ludwig Engineers for property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 1, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Eric M. Wilt for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 4, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Marcia P. Buczko for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 2, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Thomas D. Craik for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 4, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by Roger Witherspoon for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 11, 1987.
g. Claim submitted by Camille A. Taurone for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 18, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Jeffrey Craig Patko for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 21, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Marcia Bosinoff for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 26, 1986.
J. Claim submitted by Richard Allen for wrongful death of Irene Barnett
Allen and PaulAllen sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about December 7, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by Anastasio Espinobarros for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 2, 1987.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - denied:
1. Claim submitted by Delores Stewart for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 7, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Public Library Board, Minutes of March 25, 1987.
3. 158: Authorizing the City Engineer to execute relocation claims in
amounts not to exceed $10,000 for residential occupants and/or businesses
being relocated as a result of the North Anaheim Boulevard street widening
project.
4. 123/156/152: Authorizing the Chief of Police to execute agreements with
local tow truck companies to provide towing service for terms of three years.
371
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
5. 175/123: Authorizing an agreement with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company, to permit the City to construct, maintain and operate an
electric supply line under the track located on the west side of the
intersection of Raymond Avenue, and the Santa Fe track.
6. 150: Authorizing a contract change order for additional work for the Oak
Canyon Nature Center Restrooms, Account 16-810-7105-10080 and
16-810-7105-10184, in the amount of $9,461, Zagros Construction Co, contractor.
7. 123: Authorizing the Second Amendment to Agreement with Vertical
Management Systems, Inc. (VMS) to provide services relating to automatic
computer billing and processing of parking infractions, extending the contract
for one year to terminate June 17, 1988.
8. 123: Authorizing the Third Amendment to Agreement with Bob D. Simpson,
Deputy City Manager, relating to receiving supplemental retirement as current
salary. Councilman Bay abstained.
9. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of $184,440 plus freight and installation in an amount not to exceed
$6,000, for Direct Access Storage Devices equipment.
10. 160: Approving the annual maintenance costs for the FileNet Management
System with FileNet Corporation in the amount of $48,807.17 and extending the
term one year from April 1, 1987 through March 30, 1988.
11. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $11,069.47 for a
moveable track filing system in accordance with Bid No. A-4429.
12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $836,641.19 for
hardware, software, communications, conversion costs, installation and
training for an Integrated Library System, in accordance with Bid No. A-4404.
13. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87~-165: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC C0NVENIENCEAND NECESSITY
KEQUIltE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Manzanita Park,
Park & Recreation Building Improvements, Account Nos. 25-803-7107 and
16-803-7107; and opening of bids on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (La Palma Avenue
Street Improvement, East Street to Anaheim Boulevard, Account No.
12-793-6325-E3110; and opening of bids on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
15. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R- 167: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Little Peoples'
Park Improvements, Account Nos. 25-846-7103 and 16-846-7103; and opening of
bids on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
372
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
16. 150: KESOLUTION NO. 87R-168: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
KEQUIRE THE C0NSTKUCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (George Washington
Community Center Improvements, Account Nos. 25-848-7107 and 16-848-7107; and
opening of bids on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
17. 150: ESOLUTION NO. 87R-169~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETF/LW~INING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE ANDNECESSITY
~EQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Peralta Canyon
Recreation Center Improvements, Account No. 16-805-7107; and opening of bids
on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
18. 150: KESOLUTION NO. 87K-170: A~ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
~EQUI~E THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Pearson Park
Grandstand Project and Volleyball Court Improvements, Account No. 16-820-7107;
and opening of bids on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
19. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-171: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Cerritos Avenue
Street Improvement, 1300 feet east/of to Euclid Street, Account No.
12-793-6325-E3140; and opening of bids on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
20. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (NOBEST, INC.)
(Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Nobest, Inc.,
in the amount of 3136,094.84, for 1986-87 Alley Improvement, Account No.
01-793-6325-E3130 and 51-484-6993-00710)
21. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATE~ POLICY).
22. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87~-174: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING GP. ANT OF AN EASEMENT FOR WAHINE PURPOSES TO THE
CITY OF O~ANGE. (R/W 3962)
23. 158: ~ESOLUTION N0. 87K-175: A~ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CE~TAINKEAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
24. 101: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
KEQUIRE THE CONST~UCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Stadium Theme
Tower, State College at Pacifico, Account No. 61-512-7107; and opening of bids
on June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBEKS: Pickler,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBE~S: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
373
224
Ctt7 Ra!l~ An-hetm~ Ca!!fornta - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987t 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-165 through 87R-176, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
179: ANA~EIR C~ER OF COmmERCE -ItE~UEST TO PARTICIPATE IN BUDGET
BEARINGS: Letter from Floyd Farano, President, Anaheim Chamber of uom~erce,
dated April 23, 1987, requesting that the Chamber's Blue Ribbon Committee
(BRC) be allowed to participate in the remaining hearings on budgetary matters.
Councilman Bay moved that the Council respond affirmatively to the request of
the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and invite the Chamber and its Blue Ribbon
Committee (BRC) to participate in budgetary matters. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he was under the impression
staff worked with the Chamber and the BRC. He wanted to know if that process
had been eIiminated.
City Manager William Talley answered no. He believed the way the subject
letter evolved was that the Chamber became aware of the Budget Workshop held
April 10, 1987. What the Chamber is conveying 'in their letter is that if
further workshops occurred before the BRC was normally involved in the budget
process, they wanted to be advised. He has heard from Dennis Hardin, last
year's Chairman of the BRC, asking the City's intent. Mr. Hardin was informed
that staff was fully supportive and advocated participation by the BRC and
that he (Talley) at the meeting today, would be bringing Mr. Hardin's call to
the Council's attention verifying they wanted to involve the BRC again. It is
staff's intent as soon as the Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) is submitted to
the Council, they would immediately begin meeting with members of Mr. Hardin's
committee as they have done in past years.
Mayor Bay assumed then that nothing has changed and staff is working with the
Chamber as they always have and if another workshop is set, the BRC should be
informed.
City Manager Talley stated staff, the week of June 1, 1987, whenever
convenient for the BEC, would make a presentation to the Committee and
normally the Committee would set their own work schedule. After their review,
they submit a recommendation to the Council and provide staff with a copy.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4826: Amending Sections 18.03.082 and 18.03.083 of the
Code, relating to zoning procedures - extending the period to hold public
hearings from forty to sixty days after filing of appeal. Councilman Bay
offered Ordinance No. 4826 for first reading.
City Attorney White explained the reason for the proposed ordinance is to
allow an additional 20-day period on matters subject to be sent to a Hearing
Officer to allow time for notification and scheduling of the hearing without
being in default under the current 40-day limitation. At the same time, there
374
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
are two additional perfunctory changes providing that any such hearing by the
Council would be a de novo hearing - a hearing on the entire application and
not restricted to or allow to appeal only a portion of the proceeding
decision. The other chan~e is technically chan~ing some language that an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision holds that decision in abeyance.
The language is being changed to provide that the decision of the Planning
Commission is vacated upon such an appeal pending an action by the City
Council or a Hearing Officer.
ORDINANCE NO. 4826: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
18.03.082 AND 18.03.083 OF CHAPTER 18.03 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING PROCEDURES.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4827: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4827 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4827: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW
SUBSECTIONS .138 AND .615 TO SECTION 18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Adding new Subsections .138
and .615 to Section 18.61.050 of the Code, relating to child day care
facilities as conditional uses in the ML zone and Canyon Industrial Area)
113: DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS - MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD: Councilmen Bay
offered Resolution No. 87R-177 for adoption, authorizing the destruction of
certain City records more than two years old, recommended by the City Clerk in
her memorandum dated May 5, 1987. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS OLD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACARCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-177 duly passed and adopted.
108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Councilman Bay moved to approve a
Public Dance Permit submitted by Manuel S. Gomez, for Empress "Yahualica" to
hold a dance at the Convention Center on May 9, 1987, from 6:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
Councilmen Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held April 13, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 224: Submitted by Planning Commission, to
consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, proposing
375
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -Hay 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
the designation of a police station in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and
Monte Vista Road.
The application was withdrawn by staff.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2891: Submitted by Parr-Bohn Bowes Ltd., to
permit a fire equipment repair facility on ML zoned property located at 1324
So. Allec Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-82, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2891, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2896: Submitted by Ja~es A. Shab, et al,
(Global Telecommunications Corporation), to permit sales, installation and
repair of cellular car phones and two-way radios on ML zoned property located
at 1980 So. Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-83, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2896, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2853 (READY.): Submitted by Ada I. Higdon,
(Angelo's), to permit a drive-in, drive-through restaurant with car hops on CL
zoned property located at 221 North Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-84, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2853 (Ready.), and granted a negative declaration
status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2881 (READV.): Submitted by First National
Bank of Orange County, J. J. Gilkay, (Angelo's), to permit on-sale beer and
wine in a proposed outdoor patio area in conjunction with an existing
drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 511 South State
College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum landscape requirement.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-85, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2881 (Ready.), and granted a negative declaration
status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2901: Submitted by Rose C. Fukuda, et al,
(Ray's Automobile Repair), to permit an automotive repair facility on CL zoned
property located at 1905 East Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-86, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2901, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2902: Submitted by Ronald W. Rogers, to permit
a contractor's storage yard and maintenance facility on HL zoned property
located at 1420 South Allec Street, with Code waiver of required enclosure of
outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-87, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2902, and granted a negative declaration status.
376
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3651: Submitted by Kwok Bell Lee and Siumay Lee, to
construct a family-room addition to a single-family residence on RS-5000 zoned
property located a 201 South Hampton Street, with Code waiver of maximum lot
coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-89, granted
Variance No. 3651, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination, (Class 5).
9. VARIANCE NO. 3652: Submitted by General Foods, Inc., to establish a
two-parcel industrial subdivision on ML zoned property located at 1515 East
Katella Avenue, with Code waiver on required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-90, granted
Variance No. 3652, and granted a negative declaration status.
10. VARIANCE NO. 3653: Submitted by Yakub A. Vali and Lura L. Wall, to
construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment complex on PD-C zoned property located
at 119 East Water Street: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum sideyard
setback, (c) permitted access to parking spaces.
The City Planning Co,.,tssion, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-91, granted
Variance No. 3653, and granted a negative declaration status.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2720--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Jon E.
Chrtsteson, requesting an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No.
2720, to construct a 179 unit senior citizens retirement facility and a 99-bed
skilled nursing facility, with Code waiver of required lot frontage, on
property located on the north side of Medical Center Drive, approximately 585
feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2720, to expire September 30, 1987.
12. VARIANCE NO. 3521--TERMINATION: Submitted by Martin Luther Medical Group,
requesting termination of Variance No. 3521, to permit an outpatient surgical
facilityw~th Code waiver of minimumnumber of parking spaces on property
located at 1801 West Kom-eya Drive.
The City Planning Co~misslon, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-92, terminated
Variance No. 3521.
13. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Submitted by Orange County Flood
Control District, requesting determination if the proposed acquisition parcel
of land, generally located between La Palms Avenue and the Riverside Freeway
at Weir Canyon Road, conforms with the City General Plan.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-93, determinated
Orange County Flood Control District to be in conformance.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2904: Submitted by Christos Panggiotis and
Tassoula Tsachpinis, (Christo's), to permit a drive-through addition to an
377
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2790 West Lincoln Avenue,
with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and required landscaped
setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-88, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2904, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items.
179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Request by Jim Shab, Global
Telecommunications, to amend the Code to permit the installation, repair and
sales of mobile telephones as a permitted industrial use, and further to
consider whether his business could be considered a permitted industrial use
under the present Code. Submitted was an excerpt of the Planning Commission
meeting of April 13, 1987 wherein the Commission recommended denial of the
requested amendment.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, gave the background on the subject
request which had previously been through the Planning Commission and the
Council. The matter was subsequently referred back to the Planning
Commission. The Commission should have taken the recommendation in the form
of a resolution but it was done as a motion and a correction will be made.
The Commission discussed the issues again as requested by Council, (see
Council meeting minutes of March 31, 1987) and repeated what they said
before. The issue had to do with telephone assembly being permitted as
similar to manufacturing. They are installing the product in the customer's
car. They are not assembling the car plus the radio telephone. Had the
assembly been of something that was subsequently installed elsewhere, this
would be valid but since it was being done in customers cars, they felt
strongly it was a commercial type activity that necessitated a CUP. Two of
the Commissioners were fairly vehement that they were very uncomfortable with
ever making this a permanent use and felt it should be continued as a
conditional use. They approved Mr. Shab's CUP at the same time. The
condition that went in relative to the payment of the fee clarified that they
wanted the fee to be charged on that portion of the building that was going to
be utilized for the commercial aspect of the activity and not for the
permitted industrial aspect.
City Attorney Jack White. The Council is actually considering two issues -
whether they want to consider a Code Amendment and the second is the referral
to the Planning Commission and their report back to the Council. The report
is that the Planning Commission does not believe the Code should be
interpreted as finding that this use qualifies as a permitted primary or
accessory use in the MA zone on the basis it involves installation rather than
assembly or production of a product. The Council may either over-rule their
interpretation and/or initiate a possible Code Amendment. It can be a motion
either approving the Planning Commission's interpretation or disapproving it.
378
2117'
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay stated he had nothing in his agenda material giving a definition of
the opinion of the Planning Commission; City Attorney White answered that
technically there is a deficiency in that the Planning Commission did not
adopt a resolution as is required as to their interpretation. It will be
referred back to them to do so. The Council can wait until that is done to
look at the resolution to confirm or disagree if they wished.
Mayor Bay surmised that the motion today will be that the Council deny the
Code Amendment as recommended and sustain the Planning Commission action
relative to the Code Amendment. He feels, however, that the Council should
wait for a copy of the Planning Commission resolution since he would like a
clear explanation relative to their decision since the Council may be locking
themselves out of a definition they may want badly in the future. Today the
Council can vote on the denial of the Code Amendment.
Councilman Bay moved to deny the request for the Code Amendment submitted by
Mr. Shab. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11780 (READV.): Submitted by Nicola A. Bortis and
Sida Bortis, to re-establish a 7-lot (plus one open space lot)
RS-HS-22,000($C) zoned single-family residential subdivision on approximately
4.47 acres on the south side of Rio Grande Drive, approximately 1200 feet
southwest of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11780 (Readv.), and
granted a negative declaration status. There was no action taken by Council.
MOTION CARRIED.
155: SETTING A DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING - THE HIGHLANDS PROJECT -
OAK HILLS PROJECT:
HIGHIANDS PROJECT: Setting a date and time for public hearing on Specific
Plan Zoning and Development Standards for the Highlands in Anaheim hills area,
and to include consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 273
(Supplemental), Specific Plan No. 87-1 (including a Public Facilities Plan)
and Fiscal Impact Analysis for the proposed Highlands Project, to provide for
the development of up to 2,147 residential units, 8 acres of commercial uses,
284.7 acres of open space, a $ acre park site, and a 15.3 acre elementary
school site in conjunction with said public hearing. The suggested date and
time for the public hearing is Tuesday, May 26, 1987, at 3:00 p.m.
OAK HILLS PROJECT: Setting a date and time for a public hearing on General
Plan Amendment No. 223, to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan with proposals including but not limited to hillside low
density residential, hillside low-medium density residential, hillside medium
density residential, hillside medium density residential, general commercial
and general open space, on approximately 591 acres located 1.1 miles southeast
of the Weir Canyon Road and Riverside Freeway intersection and bounded on the
north by the Wallace Ranch, west by the Anaheim Hills property and south and
east by the Irvine Company property (Oak Hills Ranch), and to include
consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 281, Reclassification No.
379
City Hall~ A-~heim~ C~11fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
86-87-19, for a change in zone from OS(SC) to PC(SC) and the Public Facilities
Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis in conjunction with said public hearings.
The suggested date and time is Tuesday, May 26, 1987, at 3:00 p.m.
There was a brief Council discussion relative to setting the items for a
public hearing on two different dates due to the fact that both will be
lengthy issues.
Mayor Bay. He reported he had received a call regarding the Highlands Project
which was a direct request from the developer that the matter be set for
Tuesday, May 19, 1987. He (Bay) explained the situation relative to the
Superbowl negotiations which were taking place later that day in San Diego but
the developer insisted on the May 19, 1987 date.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that Tuesday, May 19, 1987 at 2:00 p.m. be the
date and time set for the public hearing regarding the Highlands Project
instead of the usual 3:00 p.m. starting time for public hearings.
Before any action was taken, City Manager Talley stated Council may or may not
be aware that staff has major problems with the development that were not
addressed at the Planning Commission hearing, primarily on the fiscal review
but there are also other areas. The Highlands .hearing and the Oak Hills
hearings will be substantial ones. Collectively, both developments have a
negative fiscal impact in excess of $1.2 million a year when built out. This
has not been addressed in addition to a number of other problems that staff
discussed at the May 4, 1987 Department Head meeting. Staff will be
presenting the issues to Council whenever the public hearing is held.
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development & Planning. Staff is concerned
about meeting any earlier than May 26, 1987. It is not a matter of only
resolving the issues, but he is still receiving material from the developer
which pursuant to Planning Commission action the developer was directed to
submit. They do not have some of the material as yet so have not been able to
review it and, therefore, could not offer a response. If the matter comes
before the Council too rapidly, staff will only have half completed material
which will be unfair to the Council and the developer. To hold a public
hearing on May 19, 1987 would be too soon. They are still conditioned upon
getting information in from the developer.
Mayor Bay thereupon withdrew his motion. He asked if the applicant was
possibly present today; there was no response.
Councilman Pickler expressed concern that because there would be extensive
testimony if the Council could hear both matters at one public hearing; Mayor
Bay wanted to know if the Planning Commission looked at the fiscal impact
analysis.
Norm Priest. From the standpoint not only of Planning staff and other
departments, the two projects are inter-related. Relative to the fiscal
impact analysis, the Planning Commission did not look at that in any depth.
It was brought to their attention but they did not deal with it in depth and
suggested it would be appropriate to be considered at the Council level.
38O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES -May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay wanted to know if that had been done in the past and wondered if it
was a trend that the Planning Commission was going to be referring all
problems of fiscal impact to the Council; Mr. Priest answered that would be an
opinion.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He stated that actually both instances had
occurred in the past wherein some cases the Planning Commission has looked at
the fiscal impact sometimes submitted with tract maps and some they have not.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved that Tuesday, May 26, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. be
the date and time set for a public hearing on both the Highlands Project and
the Oak Hills Project. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
134/179: SETTING A DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN
AHENDHENT NO. 228: Councilman Pickler moved to set the date and time for
public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 228, to consider an amendment to
the Land Use Element of the General Plan, redesignation from Commercial
General to Medium Density residential, and to include consideration of
Reclassification No. 86-87-32 and Variance No. 3654 in conjunction with said
public hearing as Tuesday, June 2, 1987, 3:00 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4824: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4824 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4824: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP KEFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE BERATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 66-67-67(16), ML(SC), 4506 East La Palms Avenue)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4825: Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-16, CL, southeast
corner Harbor Blvd. and Romneya Drive.
Mayor Bay asked for a one week continuance on adoption of the proposed
ordinance. He has not looked at the full impact of the zone change on that
corner and would like to do so.
Councilman Bay moved to continue first reading of Ordinance No. 4825 for one
week. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4828: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4828 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4828: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BRIATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-06, CL, 1200 North Harbor Boulevard)
107/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4829: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4829
for first reading.
ORDINANCE
11.08.030
BEVERAGES
NO. 4829: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, ~RI.ATING TO PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOLIC
IN CERTAIN AREAS OF ANAHEIM STADIUM AT CERTAIN TIMES.
381
City ~!1, A--heim~ C~ltfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
179/142: ORDLNANCE NO. 4830: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4830
for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4830: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
18.61.030 AND 18.48.050 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT
COMMEKCIAL LAUNDRIES IN THE C-R ZONE AND TO ESTABLISH LANDSCAPED SETBACKS
ADJACENT TO FREEWAYS, RESPECTIVELY.
106: ADDITIONAL BUDGET WORKSHOPS: Mayor Bay stated at the last meeting, he
recalled the Council was supposed to discuss additional budget workshops but
another date and time was not set. He asked if the Council was interested in
having another workshop or wished to wait until the budget was presented to
the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt they had bypassed the time for a workshop now and
should wait until June for the presentation; Councilman Pickler asked when the
budget was going to be presented.
City Manager Talley. The calendar staff would recommend, is as follows: On
May 26, 1987 the Council adopt the date and time to hold the public hearings;
the public hearing date recommended is June 16, 1987; the plan would be filed
with the City Clerk on June 1, 1987; and then in theory, Council could
schedule a budget workshop, not a hearing, on June 2, 1987. Staff felt
probably the Council would not want to do that but wait until there are five
Council Members. The week of June 1, 1987, staff would be scheduling meetings
with the Blue Ribbon Committee. Staff is recommending that there be a
Resource Allocation Plan Workshop Presentation on June 9, 1987. The following
week, June 16, 1987, the Council could have the public hearing which could
then be continued from week to week. On June 23, 1987, the Council would
adopt the Appropriations Limit and also consider the Community Service
Agency's requests that day. On June 30, 1987, the Council could adopt the
plan. There could be a workshop on Tuesday, June 9, 1987, a public hearing on
the 16th, adopt the Appropriations Limit and Community Services Agency budget
requests and any other discussions on the 23rd, with adoption of the budget on
June 30, 1987 including any other discussion the Council wanted to have that
day.
Mayor Bay asked if there were any comments on the project schedule; there was
general Council consensus on the proposed schedule.
Mayor Bay added, if any Council Member has comments on the budget between now
and then, they are free to make them under Council Comments each Tuesday. He
will have some comments and suggestions in the coming weeks where he thinks
some very serious austerity cuts ought to be made in that budget that may not
necessarily agree with the City Manager's opinion on eventually balancing the
budget.
City Manager Talley. His opinions are going to agree with whatever three
Council Members want to do. The earlier staff can get Council questions or
requests the better, when they are mentioned on Tuesday, generally staff's
ability to respond would be the next Tuesday. If any Council Members wanted
to let staff know on Thursday or Friday that the comments would be coming up,
382
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
staff could distribute those to the other Council Members and prepare
information for Council in order to possibly dialogue that Tuesday. If Just
comments are given, those can be addressed by staff when the Plan is presented.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved for a short recess before considering the public
hearing portion of the agenda. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted no stating that the business of the City has to
continue. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (3:05 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (3:20 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-38:
APPLICANT:
Corniche Development Corporation
1681 Loma RoJa Drive
Santa Ama, Ca. 92705
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request to amend Condition No. 5 of Resolution No.
86R-438, granting Reclassification No. 85-86-38, for a change in zone from
R$-7200 to CO on Property located at 800 So. Harbor Boulevard.
HEARING SET ON:
Required when request for amendment to conditions are received.
was continued from the meeting of April 21, 1987 to this date.
This matter
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIKEMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 9, 1987.
Posting of property April 10, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 10, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Daniel O'Connor, 1681 Loma RoJa, Santa Ama, representing
Coruiche Development.
He is requesting a waiver or amelioration of a condition which
presents a hardship, specifically the condition regarding the
payment of fees for ultimate right-of-way improvements relating
to Harbor Blvd. and Helena Street, Condition No. 5 of Council
Resolution No. 86R-438. Mr. O'Connor then explained the
dedication required of the project which in total amounts to
4,000 square feet of property at a cost of ~60,000. In the
process of the zone change, one of the conditions surprised
them. They were not aware of the consequences of Condition No.
5 which requested the payment of fees to the ultimate
right-of-way improvements. The City has further requested a
fee, not a bond, of $74,400 for those improvements, the
relocation of curb, gutter, sidewalks, etc. In discussing the
Condition with City staff, they have no dates certain when these
improvements will be made or dates certain that the improvements
will be made at all. The street widening projects could occur
383
2i4
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
any time in the next 10 to 15 years. He is present before the
Council because the project is at a crossroad. They have pulled
their gradin~ permits but are unable to pull their buildin~
permits until there is a resolution of the question of the fee.
Inasmuch as they are adversely affected, he is respectfully
requesting Council consideration of a waiver or amelioration as
to the ultimate right-of-way improvements.
City Attorney Jack ~hite.
He reviewed what is required by the Condition in the resolution
and the Anaheim Municipal Code. After he briefed Section 18.04
of the Code, he explained if the City Engineer determines it is
unknown when those improvements would be required in the future,
the City Engineer is then required, prior to issuing building
permits, to obtain cash money of equal to what the improvements
will ultimately cost if and when constructed. If it is known,
the Code requires before building permits posting of a
Performance Bond to guarantee installation at that future date.
The authority the Council has today is whether or not Condition
No. 5 be interpreted as requiring those improvements or posting
of the cash at a time earlier than in connection with building
permits. It is his view from a legal standpoint because the
Code requires the improvements to be constructed either at the
time of occupancy, with a bond posted prior to building permits,
or if the City Engineer determines it is not known when the
improvements will be required, to post cash equivalent to the
cost of those improvements before building permits that the
Council does not have the prerogative to waive that
requirement. The only way that can be ameliorated is to amend
the Code to change that requirement. At this time there is no
provision in the Code to do so. The extent of the Council's
Jurisdiction from a legal standpoint is to either amend
Condition No. 5 in the Resolution or to interpret Condition No.
~ in a way that would not require the improvements to be
installed or the cash posted at a date prior to the time the
Code would otherwise require it by itself.
Councilman Pickler.
He has a concern with the situation and he has talked to staff
about the matter. It is a situation where the City does not
even know at this time that the improvements are going to be
needed but at the same time asking the developer for ~75,000.
Harbor Blvd was Just improved. If ever the additional
improvements are needed the developer or whoever he might sell
the property to, the commitment to make those improvements would
be there. He does not believe it is fair. When he read the
Condition he thought that a Performance Bond could be put up for
the future.
Mayor Bay asked if staff has come to the conclusion that it is
not known when the improvements are going to be made how staff
could estimate a cash payment.
384
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
Initially in an effort to try to work with the developer, he
tried to provide a mechanism to give them the option either to
install the improvements or to make the in-lieu payment, i.e.,
the value of the improvements. In reviewing the ordinance with
the City Attorney, he (Johnson) was not able to make the finding
that it in the interest of public health, safety and general
welfare that the improvements be delayed because of the location
of the improvements being at an intersection which, in effect,
provides a right-turn pocket for the development. Lacking the
ability to make that finding, this would fall back as a normal
condition on any development on any building permit that the
developer post the bond and dedicate prior to the building
permit and construction of the improvements prior to occupancy
which is normal in this City and any other city in the area.
Further, the Traffic Engineer feels that there is some benefit
of capacity in traffic safety in having the right-turn pocket at
that location.
Councilman Pickler.
If the improvement is made now, that section of Harbor Blvd.
would Jut in about 8 feet and remain that way for 10 to 15
years. It would not be beneficial to the appearance of that
portion of Harbor Blvd. He cannot go along with that while also
requiring the payment of a fee from the developer, a sum which
the City may never use.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He reported that relative to the fees collected, those fees are
held in a street improvement fund and used for street
improvements in the City. The money does not go into the
General Fund. 3370,000 has already been collected from other
properties in that fund. He reiterated the only thing the
Council could do today would be to interpret Condition No. § to
provide that it would not require dedications, improvements or
payments other than the Municipal Code at times earlier than
that. If the Council was so inclined, they could instruct staff
to prepare a Code Amendment. The money collected is in today's
dollars for an improvement that may not occur for several years.
Extensive discussion followed wherein the City Attorney
explained the history of the applicable Code Section which
ultimately gives the City Engineer the ability to make a
determination by Code that the improvements were not now needed,
and in lieu of putting them in at a date in the future, give the
ability to the developer rather than putting in the improvements
to pay an in-lieu cash sum equal to what the cost of the
improvements would be. He would be required to put in
improvements under any scenario.
Daniel O'Connor.
They intend to do the right-of-way improvements at this time.
The disadvantage is in the fact that they will also be required
to pay a second time at some uncertain date in the future.
385
City Hs]i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter.
He felt Mr. O'Connor m/ght be confused. The 575,000 now is for
whatever improvements are goin8 to happen in the future. There
is not 8otng to be another billing 10 years from now or a higher
amount. The 375,000 will cover those improvements in today's
value.
Daniel O'Connor.
He stands corrected. The scenario he was drawing was to provide
for doing those improvements at a future date and still maintain
the integrity of Harbor Blvd. which has been recently redone.
His question to the City Attorney is whether it is possible at
this time for them to post a Performance Bond for the 575,000 in
the form of a letter of credit as they have done for the
improvements to meet their obligation on South Street, yet still
hold open the question as to whether they would pay an in-lieu
fee and all to be resolved prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. They would also like have the option
of continuing discussions regarding the validity of the fee, the
amount and timing. If they could be allowed to post a faithful
Performance Bond for the improvements prior to the Certificates
of Occupancy that would satisfy ~he City with a cash fee payment
for the return of the Performance Bond or complete the work
satisfying the Performance Bond requirement.
City Attorney, Jack White.
Part of that could be done because it is what the Code says.
Before getting a building permit, putting up a Performance Bond
or letter of credit to guarantee that the improvements will be
put in before occupancy. The part he has difficulty with is
leaving it to the property owner's option as to whether they are
going to put in the improvements or pay the cash in-lieu fee
because the Code provides that it is not the property owner's
option but the City Engineer's.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Frank Feldhouse, 1875 Lullaby Lane.
His case is somewhat parallel to that of Mr. O'Connor's. He
owns the property at 612 and 616 So. Harbor Blvd. The City
approved his project almost two years ago whichallowed him to
add on to the back of his property and subsequently to Join his
buildings. When preparing to Join the buildings~ he was
informed there was a new Ordinance No. 4677 providin& that he
must dedicate 15 feet from the property line as a condition of
getting a construction permit. The City requested 521,000 which
is more than the whole project cost for a date that may not even
occur for 20 years, a figure he was quoted. Further, he was
told it would probably be impossible to put up any bond and that
the dedication has to be made before he can get a permit to
continue construction and also that he could not put some kind
of monthly type payment to fit the requirement and that it had
to be cash. He will process his case through proper channels
386
57:
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
and go through the Planning Commission to try to apply for
waivers because it would create a hardship on him.
Mayor Bay.
He asked if there was something new in the fee structure causing
all the fees to go up.
It is not new in the sense that the ordinance has always
required the dedication and improvements, It provides for an
in-lieu or cash payment to exonerate the owner of the
requirement to put in the improvements and the City would do it
at a later date so that the public in general would not have to
bear that expense, The cost to the developer is the same, It
is not an increased fee but a slightly different way of doing
business that staff believes makes more sense relative to the
development of streets in the City.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked if the developer were to put up a Performance Bond
could he start building.
City Attorney, Jack White, answered yes.
City Engineer, Gary Johnson.
His viewpoint would be that the Performance Bond and dedication
be made prior to building permit issuance and construction of
improvements before the Certification of Occupancy since he
cannot make the finding that they should be delayed. If
Condition No. 5 is struck, it would revert back to the Municipal
Code. He does not know how that affects the zone change that
has not yet been granted.
City Attorney, Jack White.
If the Council decides to strike Condition No. 5 out of the
Reclassification, the Council allows this particular property
0w~er to go ahead and finalize the zoning on the property. That
is a precondition to him getting his building permit as well.
The only hurdle left, assuming all other conditions are met, is
complying with Section 18.04 which he can comply with by
dedicating and depositing a Performance Bond and then getting
his building permit. The bond will say that he shall complete
the street improvements before he gets his occupancy permit.
Mayor Bay.
He asked if the Council removes Condition No. 5 then everything
goes back to Code; City Attorney White answered yes.
387
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
He asked Mr. O'Connor if he understood if the Council removes
Condition No. 5 the situation falls back on the existing Code as
described. He asked if that is what he wanted.
David O'Connor.
He believes so. If they post their Performance Bond then the
first and second reading of the ordinance would occur and they
would be free to pull their building permits and start
construction. That was the crux of the matter. He is
respectfully appealing to the Council for the deletion of
Condition No. 5.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-178 deleting Condition No. 5 from
Resolution No. 86R-438. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DELETING CONDITION NO. 5 FROM RESOLUTION NO. 86R-438.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-178 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Councilman Pickler asked if Mr. O'Connor then had to put
the improvements in or pay the 375,000.
City Attorney White. He has to put the improvements in before occupancy and
post a bond before building permits.
Councilman Pickler. He does not want to see the improvements go in or for the
developer to have to pay 375,000 at this time.
Mayor Bay. He su~ested that Councilman Pickler request a staff report
concernlnl the complexities of this part of the Municipal Code with the
alternative to amend it relative to what he is talking about so that the whole
Council can take a look at the side effects across the City impacting the cost
of doing a lot of things. Councilman Pickler agreed.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-25~ VARIANCE NO. 3645 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Norma Wu - Tainan Group
6965 Aragon Circle,
Buena Park, Ca. 90620
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to
construct a 21-unit apartment complex property located at 527 North Magnolia
Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum site coverage.
388
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-62 approved Reclassification
No. 86-87-25; Resolution No. PC87-63, granted Variance No. 3645; approved EIR
- Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meetin~ of April 7, 1987.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 23, 1987.
Posting of property April 24, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 24, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 16, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Yaw-kaiWhuang, 1414 Oxford Road, San Moreno, was present to
answer questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is concerned with the description of the project being a
"box like" building when there are certain aesthetics involved,
they often do not cost any more to make an attractive building.
Changing the design of the roof structure would make a
difference since a flat roof is very unappealing. She wanted to
know if there was something that could be done to make it more
aesthetically acceptable. This was a nice area and if
developments start going back to flat buildings like a spec
industrial building, those do not belong in a residential area.
Mr. Whuang.
They had to put in subterranean parking. They could not find a
good alternative to make pleasing architectural geometry. He
does not feel the roof was that flat. It was a mansard roof
with spanish tile all around.
Councilman Pickler.
He is concerned with the aesthetics of the building. It does
look like a box. He wanted to know if there was something that
could be done; Mr. Whuang answered yes.
Hayor Bay.
He is concerned when the Council starts talking about aesthetic
control since within the City's Codes, the Council does not
control aesthetics or the architecture of a project other than
in redevelopment. He is much more concerned over the fact that
since there are so many two-bedroom apartments in the area they
should set up some type of occupancy limitation as the Council
has previously done on multiple housing coming into the City
where there is on-site management and getting a stipulation from
the owner relative to a limit on occupancy since this was a
hearing de novo.
389
56
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -Hay 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter.
He agreed with Council Members Kaywood and Pickler that the
project looks like a box but the project is apparently followins
Code and the only variance is relative to maximum site
coverage. He is concerned in those areas where the Council does
have control that there be some type of theme. He does not know
if in the future throughout the City there could be some type of
architectural control.
Councllwoman Kaywood.
If the applicant does not object, he could design something
bette___r~_looking and then get the approval of the Planning
Department.
City Attorney, Jack White.
The conditions can be amended to provide that the project will
be redesigned in conformity with the surrounding area and that
the redesign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for their approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Mayor Bay.
He was not in agreement with the foregoing.
Councilman Pickler.
He suggested that Mr. Whuan~ contact the architect who worked
with him on the project and that the matter be continued for one
week for him to speak with the arch/tect relative to a redesign.
City Attorney White.
He suggested that the continuance be based on the applicant
submitting revised plans.
Councilman Pickler asked that perhaps Ms. Santalahti could speak
with the architect; Ms. Santalahti stated from the comments made
relative to the buildings in the area that the Council would
like to see something more comparable to what is presently in
that area. She will go the area and take a look and perhaps get
some slides so that his architect can come up with some
suggestions to bring his project into greater conformity.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 86-87-25, Variance No. ~6~$ and Negative Declaration ~or
one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the balance of the items previously announced by the City
Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CAI~IED. (4:36 p.m.)
390
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTE~ RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (6:02 p.m)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (6:03 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
391